...The facts remain that no life exists off of the earth.Lets just stick to the science. Nothing lives off the earth....

I'm sorry, but I find this particularly amusing. Science is about inquiry. There is ample evidence that life is possible off the earth. Whether there is intelligent life is another matter entirely. But life? Very likely.

Isn't a star a type of life? I mean they're "born", they are around a very long time then they "die". Isn't the Universe itself life? Or even Nebulas, and the like? I'm not saying they're self-aware or anything but it is life, no?[1]-Nam

but the description of the finished result is not one of a planet 1 week old, what ever that would look like.

Bully for you, if you don't follow YECs. But I think their point is a deity capable of creating a universe would be capable of creating it in a way that would appear to be old. So your scientific standards of what a young planet should look like are irrelevant because they do not jibe with the bible, which is all those tards care about.

I'm no longer a YEC simply because they taught me to read the scriptures for confirmation of any spiritual ideasand the scriptures describe an "old" earth at the end of Creation week. I don't know the detaisl of how Jesus turned water into wine either, but it was either water or a fine vintage of wine. If it was the later, then "time" was added to the mix somewhere. So it's not logical for a Creationist to expect a young earth. Some priest cameup with that idea.

The Genesis account does not describe a "young" earth. Adam is not an infant, trees have fruit on them, and Adam and Eve can talk. Nothing about the Creation account says that anything was 7 days old on the 7th day of Creation week. A Catholic priest came up with that idea that the earth is young and "Creationists" bought into the idea. None of the Apostles ever mentioned it.

Young Earth Creationism is the idea that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, as opposed to an 'old' Earth, billions of years old.

The facts remain that no life exists off of the earth.Lets just stick to the science. Nothing lives off the earth.

And I'm sure you'll continue repeating this, like a mantra, until the day scientists discover the life that almost certainly exists elsewhere in the cosmos.

Quote from: SkyWriting

As far as dreams of other life.....lets be practical. Multiply the odds of life, by the speed of light, and by the time you find this statistical-planet-possibility, your radio message of success will not reach earth before humans all turn to dust. And that assuming your traveling at the speed of light. If you do then humans you left behind will all be dust after the first moment anyway.

You don't even know what the actual odds of life are, do you? Or how odds work to begin with. Not to mention that you don't seem to understand how the speed of light works either. There are dozens of stars within a hundred light-years of Earth, several of which have been found to have planets which are probable candidates for life, and we're getting to the point where we can detect the presence of water on a planet remotely too. So we'd only have to check them, not go to each star in sequence. Not only that, but human civilization has existed for over 6,000 years. I highly doubt that humans would be 'dust' before an expedition could go to such a planet and send word back.

I have come to the realization that the scriptures are accurate. But the descriptions of trees and fruit and such do not describe a seed 7 days old in soil.Even if it did, what is soil?

So nothing is described as being created "young". Creation seems to be "mature" from day one.That's why science does not disagree with the scriptures.It disagrees with people who think the Bible requires a "young" earth, when it doesn't.

Which is totally irrelevant. As we've discovered with clones, something can only have existed a few months or years (its age), and yet be physically mature. You're playing with technicalities (and failing miserably).

Your being duped. There is none. People are duping you into such thinking by talking about "water" here or there. Its a scam to get more funding.

We can't even create life here. How could it happen by natural causes elsewhere?

That's what these scientists - who you accuse of running a scam to get funding - are trying to discover. Because that's what science is about, discovering how things actually work and what actually exists, rather than ignorantly proclaiming things based on religious texts that were written by people who at least had some excuse for their own ignorance.

I disagree with Creationists who claim the earth should look to be only 10,000 yrs old.I'm not clear if it DID happen around then, but the description of the finished result is not one of a planet 1 week old, what ever that would look like.

So for Creationists to insist on a young earth is a waste of time. I believe what the scriptures say and the scriptures don't describe a young earth.

Young Earth Creationists argue that God magically created the Earth - in its present form, more or less - a few thousand years ago. And yet you persist in declaring that because they talk about things being 'young', they must be referring to physical maturity, not age.

Like it or not, SkyWriting, you are a Young Earth Creationist, because you argue that the Earth was created in its present form and base it on what Scripture says.

No, we are just about finished. Traveling at light speed won't get us to another planet before life on earth is gone. And we don't travel at light speed well.

Now you're just being silly. Civilization on Earth has existed for thousands of years. And yet you proclaim that we couldn't even make it to another planet, traveling at light speed, before humans die out? The nearest star system, Alpha Centauri, is only four light years away (I dunno if it has planets or not, but it's a good example). Traveling at light speed, it would only take eight years, round-trip. I realize that's probably a significant percentage of your life span, but I'm pretty sure humanity would still be here after such an expedition.

Now, the fact is that we don't know how to travel at light speed. We don't even know how to accelerate things to anywhere near light speed. So more than likely, those four light-years to Alpha Centauri would take a lot more to actually travel, using current technology and methods (for example, using orbital slingshot mechanics to gain speed beyond what would be possible through a conventional rocket, not to mention that once a rocket is accelerated, it stays accelerated unless acted upon by an outside force). But still, it's remarkably ignorant to say that humans would be dust before we returned.

Quote from: SkyWriting

You've been overexposed to a vacuum for so long that thoughts seem like they are alive. If life could develop on it's own it would be common place on earth and would have a law of nature to support it.It might read like any Frankenstein story: " Take organic material, warm it, add light, life forms".Not that advanced of course, but there would at least be ONE observation that would lead to life.And because it's so hard to really get things going....we've proven....then you should have millions of suchtheories ad experiments going at all times. But we exist in a pure vacuum of facts and just the thought of watermakes scientific grown men tinckle in their pants about the possibility of life.

Given your apparent lack of understanding of things like biology and chemistry, you probably should stop trying to sound like you're knowledgeable about things like science. Especially since you think that the Creation described in Scripture is an accurate description of how things actually happened - even though there were no humans around to see the process happening, let alone able to record their stories accurately. Genesis is nothing more than an invented story to try to explain why humans exist, not much different from the dozens of other creation myths that other people have come up with.

Quote from: SkyWriting

But it's not reasonable that we spend time and energy we don't have on the effort. We don't have a million years just to find a worm on another planet.

We probably wouldn't need a million years. We might not even need a thousand, at the rate at which technology is developing.

----

You say you're not a Young Earth Creationist, yet you declare that Scripture is accurate and describes how things really happened. That means you probably believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old, that life was created in a mature form, and so on. Well, that's Young Earth Creationism to a T. Young Earth Creationism doesn't declare that organisms and things created by God during the 'Creation' were created through natural processes - it declares that God magically poofed them into existence, in fully mature forms. They did not exist before God did this, according to Genesis. That means no matter how old they look, their actual age would only have been a day on the day after 'Creation'.

And that's why you're still a Young Earth Creationist. Because you believe in an Earth that is only a few thousand years old, as opposed to an Earth that is billions. A 'young' Earth, as opposed to an 'old' one.

You've been overexposed to a vacuum for so long that thoughts seem like they are alive. If life could develop on it's own it would be common place on earth and would have a law of nature to support it.It might read like any Frankenstein story: " Take organic material, warm it, add light, life forms".Not that advanced of course, but there would at least be ONE observation that would lead to life.

A creationist parody that doesn't resemble biology as we know it. The first replicating molecules and their immediate percusors were absurdly simple by the standards of life now, billions of years later. Even if abiogenesis could recur in the modern era outside a lab, the results would be immediately metabolized by single-celled organisms.

Quote

And because it's so hard to really get things going....we've proven....then you should have millions of suchtheories ad experiments going at all times. But we exist in a pure vacuum of facts and just the thought of watermakes scientific grown men tinckle in their pants about the possibility of life.

But it's not reasonable that we spend time and energy we don't have on the effort. We don't have a million years just to find a worm on another planet.

Thanks for the links. Sure, the possibility of even single-celled life elsewhere in the solar system is exciting. And aside from confirmation that life existed elsewhere, actually studying such life would definitely be valuable: comparing an independent evolutionary lineage to ours would give profound insight into biology and the life sciences in general.

The first replicating molecules and their immediate percusors were absurdly simple by the standards of life now, billions of years later. Even if abiogenesis could recur in the modern era outside a lab, the results would be immediately metabolized by single-celled organisms.

That's a fascinating point about other organisms possibly scarfing up the products of abiogenesis in the wild. The molecules could simply bind chemically to a small section of DNA, enhancing or masking out part of an allele, and continue their replication as a variant of that cell line rather than as separate units of proto-life.

Considering how crowded the biosphere is at present, I would be utterly astounded if they were to discover any freestanding colonies of self-replicating molecules. I think in vitro observation is far more likely to succeed.

The first replicating molecules and their immediate percusors were absurdly simple by the standards of life now, billions of years later. Even if abiogenesis could recur in the modern era outside a lab, the results would be immediately metabolized by single-celled organisms.

That's a fascinating point about other organisms possibly scarfing up the products of abiogenesis in the wild. The molecules could simply bind chemically to a small section of DNA, enhancing or masking out part of an allele, and continue their replication as a variant of that cell line rather than as separate units of proto-life.

Considering how crowded the biosphere is at present, I would be utterly astounded if they were to discover any freestanding colonies of self-replicating molecules. I think in vitro observation is far more likely to succeed.

Precisely. Current life on Earth has the advantage of 3.5 billion years of mutation and natural selection. The result of any new abiogenesis would have to somehow equal that to even have a chance at competing.

Designed organisms might well do so, which is one concern about synthetic life: if we ever manage to pull it off, it might then be possible to create a form of life that could out-compete any naturally-ocurring one.

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius

We do need more fishing worms. I look forward to having another source.

But here's the thing. Why would it have any importance? So what? Chemistry produces life, there are chemicals in other places, what would be the big deal? It would be like discovering that the opposite side of the sum produces heat, just like this side does.Hey, the moon is dusty on both sides! Big splattering deal.

A good question, SW. Assuming we find even single-celled life off-Earth and are able (which would most likely mean it's in our solar system) to learn about its makeup, here's my answer. I doubt it will satisfy you, but to educate myself and any interested onlookers...

Primarily, its importance would be as a comparison to Terrestrial life. Does it use DNA? If it does, then that strongly implies a common origin. Even if it uses a similar water-carbon, left-handed sugar chemistry, there could be subtle differences (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/spectrum_plants.html). Such things have been theorized, but in my example, human biologists would have actual samples to examine.

What can be deduced about its evolutionary history? Can we find its molecular clock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock) and discover how old it is compared to Earth life? Fossils? What is its average rate of evolutionary change?

Such comparisons would be extremely valuable in giving insight into how our biochemistry works. Does alien life do certain things more or less efficiently? This could lead to an explosion of new applications in medicine similar to the new techniques for treating cancer and genetic diseases, to name just one possibility.

Lastly, I would also expect theists of all kinds to be interested in such a discovery. Just as most god-believers have no problem accepting the fact of evolution, I think they would accept the existence of alien life as compatible with their religious views. There would likely would be a vocal minority of doubters and detractors as well.

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius

We do need more fishing worms. I look forward to having another source.

But here's the thing. Why would it have any importance? So what? Chemistry produces life, there are chemicals in other places, what would be the big deal? It would be like discovering that the opposite side of the sum produces heat, just like this side does.Hey, the moon is dusty on both sides! Big splattering deal.

A good question, SW. Assuming we find even single-celled life off-Earth and are able (which would most likely mean it's in our solar system) to learn about its makeup, here's my answer. I doubt it will satisfy you, but to educate myself and any interested onlookers...

Primarily, its importance would be as a comparison to Terrestrial life. Does it use DNA? If it does, then that strongly implies a common origin. Even if it uses a similar water-carbon, left-handed sugar chemistry, there could be subtle differences (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/spectrum_plants.html). Such things have been theorized, but in my example, human biologists would have actual samples to examine.

What can be deduced about its evolutionary history? Can we find its molecular clock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock) and discover how old it is compared to Earth life? Fossils? What is its average rate of evolutionary change?

Such comparisons would be extremely valuable in giving insight into how our biochemistry works. Does alien life do certain things more or less efficiently? This could lead to an explosion of new applications in medicine similar to the new techniques for treating cancer and genetic diseases, to name just one possibility.

Lastly, I would also expect theists of all kinds to be interested in such a discovery. Just as most god-believers have no problem accepting the fact of evolution, I think they would accept the existence of alien life as compatible with their religious views. There would likely would be a vocal minority of doubters and detractors as well.

That's all good. But by the time we COULD find any, we would be dust. So the one reason is to make money...an acceptable reason. The other is most likely the driving force, for religious reasons.

That's all good. But by the time we COULD find any, we would be dust. So the one reason is to make money...an acceptable reason. The other is most likely the driving force, for religious reasons.

For someone who is demonstrating his ignorance of science all over this forum, you sure do post a lot of BS disguised as information.

Can you explain how you can just arbitrarily declare that we'll all be dust before anything COULD be found? What is the basis for your emphatic statement? Because I gotta tell ya - it looks like you're pulling another one directly out of your backside with this post.

That's all good. But by the time we COULD find any, we would be dust. So the one reason is to make money...an acceptable reason. The other is most likely the driving force, for religious reasons.

Sure, making money is an acceptable reason for space exploration. It's unfortunate, but pure science is rarely enough (by itself) to convince people to invest in such expensive, long-term projects. Even stable, wealthy governments, without some political end in view (getting to the Moon before the Commies showed us up, for instance) are reluctant to pay more than a pittance for it.

Can you support your claim that religious reasons are the driving force behind space exploration? In my hypothetical example, I predicted religious interest over the discovery of alien life, but it's quite a leap to say that religion has contributed to the field in any substantial way.

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius

So you feel I should hide my ignorance so that no one would find out how ignorant I am. I don't see how that would benefit you if I appeared smarter.

Maybe she's not articulated it well, but I think the issue is your ignorance and complete lack of supporting evidence for your claims combined with arrogance and condescending tone. It sort of gives the impression you are not here to discuss, but to preach and troll.

So you feel I should hide my ignorance so that no one would find out how ignorant I am.

Personally I think you should just try to address knowledge gaps so that we can all be on the same page in our discussions. There's no shame, and amazing long-term benefits, in saying "I don't understand what they mean by ______ in this article, here. Could someone please explain it in non-technical terms?"

That's all good. But by the time we COULD find any, we would be dust. So the one reason is to make money...an acceptable reason. The other is most likely the driving force, for religious reasons.

For someone who is demonstrating his ignorance of science all over this forum, you sure do post a lot of BS disguised as information.

So you feel I should hide my ignorance so that no one would find out how ignorant I am. I don't see how that would benefit you if I appeared smarter.

And I don't see how this addresses my question, which I see you left out of your response.

I'm not sure how you draw the conclusion that I think you should hide your ignorance, based on my off-hand remark. screwtape did a fine job of making my point more clearly, but I'll go a little further for you, just so we're as clear as we can be.

I followed your posts on a couple of topics in one sitting yesterday. I'm seeing a pattern of relying on tiny bits of science when it suits you, and whitewashing over tons more when it doesn't. I'm not ever remotely prepared to debate the bible so I don't get involved in biblical debates. You seem equally ill prepared to debate science, so I'm puzzled by your persistent efforts to do so. I freely admit I have a non-tolerant attitude toward anyone who relies on the god-of-the-gaps argument, which is more or less what you are doing. In other words, if YOU don't understand, then the only possible explanation that YOU see must be god. Science has many more plausible explanations which you appear to dismiss out of hand, seemingly without even bothering to find your own areas of ignorance FIRST. There's no shame in not knowing all the answers, but there certainly should be some attached to making up unsubstantiated nonsense to fill in the blanks. And be very clear - in this instance I'm not referring to your belief in a deity in particular, I'm talking about things like additions to biblical stories to support your beliefs. Or arbitrarily deciding that we'll all be dust before ... well apparently just about anything - you seem to think all becoming dust is due to occur in the next few weeks for as often as you've been throwing that phrase around.

Now, please address my original question, which was the point of my post: Can you explain how you can just arbitrarily declare that we'll all be dust before anything COULD be found? What is the basis for your emphatic statement?

Edited: corrected spelling error

« Last Edit: June 20, 2013, 12:53:07 PM by Jag »

Logged

"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

So you feel I should hide my ignorance so that no one would find out how ignorant I am. I don't see how that would benefit you if I appeared smarter.

The problem is not that you're ignorant so much as it is that you apparently think you aren't. For example, you keep saying that there is no point in looking for life elsewhere because "earth would be dust" before we could find it. You tried to claim that if we sent a spaceship at near the speed of light to a planet 13 LY away, "earth will (be) dust before they return". Both of these statements are demonstrably false (as I did with your spaceship example), yet you presented them as if they were true beyond question.

Do you see the problem? You don't really understand what you're talking about very well, yet you not only act as if you do (which would be aggravating in and of itself), you take on a condescending and arrogant tone in the process. And when people call you on it, you don't really listen very well.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

To put things in perspective regarding our prospects of space exploration and finding extraterrestrial life, consider that the first human space flight was less than 60 years ago. At that time, the most advanced computers on the planet were the size of a room. Today, you're probably carrying superior computational power around in your pocket or purse.

A new field of scientific research takes time to get started, but once it hits its stride it just keeps building on its foundations and refining its methods. I don't think Alpha Centauri is that far away at all, either in time or in distance.

To put things in perspective regarding our prospects of space exploration and finding extraterrestrial life, consider that the first human space flight was less than 60 years ago. At that time, the most advanced computers on the planet were the size of a room. Today, you're probably carrying superior computational power around in your pocket or purse.

A new field of scientific research takes time to get started, but once it hits its stride it just keeps building on its foundations and refining its methods. I don't think Alpha Centauri is that far away at all, either in time or in distance.

4.3 light years. Buuut we don't travel at light speed. We would need 10,000 times as much power to reach 1/100 of light speed. Or 800 years round trip.

So you feel I should hide my ignorance so that no one would find out how ignorant I am. I don't see how that would benefit you if I appeared smarter.

The problem is not that you're ignorant so much as it is that you apparently think you aren't. For example, you keep saying that there is no point in looking for life elsewhere because "earth would be dust" before we could find it. You tried to claim that if we sent a spaceship at near the speed of light to a planet 13 LY away, "earth will (be) dust before they return". Both of these statements are demonstrably false (as I did with your spaceship example), yet you presented them as if they were true beyond question.

Do you see the problem? You don't really understand what you're talking about very well, yet you not only act as if you do (which would be aggravating in and of itself), you take on a condescending and arrogant tone in the process. And when people call you on it, you don't really listen very well.

I firmly hold that nobody should take my word for anything and should check the facts themselves on anything they doubt.

Then if your concern is about my reputation, I appreciate your concern, but I'll be fine when found wrong. I love being corrected.

I firmly hold that nobody should take my word for anything and should check the facts themselves on anything they doubt.

Then if your concern is about my reputation, I appreciate your concern, but I'll be fine when found wrong. I love being corrected.

I don't care about your 'reputation', I care about the fact that you're acting like you know things despite showing that you don't, all the while gaily ignoring what people are actually trying to say to you. It gives the lie to your statement that you love to be corrected.

For example, let's take your response to Astreja just now. She pointed out that technologies improve over time, such as how computing technology has improved over the past 60 years. Your response was to blithely say that it would take "10,000 times as much power to reach 1/100 of light speed". As if you didn't really even think about what she said.

The first real computer, ENIAC, could operate at 200,000 cycles/second (200 kHz). The computer I'm typing this response on has a dual-core processor that operates at 2,000,000,000 cycles/second (2 GhZ). That's a 20,000 fold increase in computing power just from processor speed. It very clearly illustrates how effectively technology can improve over time. While space flight and computers are different fields, it's reasonable to conclude that working on space flight would pay similar dividends over time.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Now, please address my original question, which was the point of my post: Can you explain how you can just arbitrarily declare that we'll all be dust before anything COULD be found? What is the basis for your emphatic statement?

Still waiting......

Logged

"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

I firmly hold that nobody should take my word for anything and should check the facts themselves on anything they doubt.

Then if your concern is about my reputation, I appreciate your concern, but I'll be fine when found wrong. I love being corrected.

I don't care about your 'reputation', I care about the fact that you're acting like you know things despite showing that you don't, all the while gaily ignoring what people are actually trying to say to you. <snip>

I'll cover this again. I'm not trying to change any minds on any topics. Perhaps I'm not like you. Consider there is room in the worldfor people not looking for answers.

I'll cover this again. I'm not trying to change any minds on any topics.

Does this include your own mind?

Quote

Perhaps I'm not like you. Consider there is room in the worldfor people not looking for answers.

That's fine if you aren't looking for answers, but stop providing bull$*!+ answers to people who are seeking answers.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

While space flight and computers are different fields, it's reasonable to conclude that working on space flight would pay similar dividends over time.

Precisely. I think the main reason we haven't already gotten to Alpha Centauri[1] is financial. A novice electronics geek can design circuitboards with minimal equipment and can get started for well under $100, and there's tons of free resources for anyone who wants to write software, but designing a spaceship takes some serious $$$ and access to a lot more equipment and materials.

I'll cover this again. I'm not trying to change any minds on any topics. Perhaps I'm not like you. Consider there is room in the world for people not looking for answers.

People post here for one of two reasons (from what I've seen - it can also be for both reasons): 1-to learn or 2-to change minds/teach.You claim to not be here for either reason - then why are you posting here?

Plus, the way you post pretty much screams that you want to change our minds. (You haven't shown enough knowledge to be here to teach.)

As for people who aren't looking for answers - that means they are content to be a human shaped cow and I have no use for them since they will not make any appreciable contribution to the human race.

If you really want to be one then stop posting on the internet and chew your cud. Otherwise start trying to be honest.

I need to add that the others have been quite reasonable to you but you aren't doing the same in return. People like you are the main reason why I stopped calling myself Christian long before I lost my religion.

« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 01:15:55 PM by Samothec »

Logged

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

People post here for one of two reasons (from what I've seen - it can also be for both reasons): 1-to learn or 2-to change minds/teach.

entertainment?

Okay, three reasons - although most of the entertainment would be the reading rather than posting.

1-entertain2-socialize3-<said in a bad Spanish Inquisition accent> Four! The four reasons someone would post here would be: 1-comfy chairsWait, wait. Of the reasons someone would post here would be:1-learn2-change minds/teach3-entertain4-socialize5?-comfy chairs - maybe - does everyone have a comfy chair? What about a soft pillow?6-spam7-penguin on the telly8-Ministry of Silly Walks Arguments

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."